FOSTERING SOCIAL-ECOLOGICAL RESILIENCE IN THE UPPER KLAMATH
BASIN: THE NATIONAL RIPARIAN SERVICE TEAM’S CREEKS &
COMMUNITIES STRATEGY AS AN EMERGING MODEL FOR GOVERNMENT IN
ADAPTIVE CO-MANAGEMENT
By
Robyn N. Paulekas
A RESEARCH PAPER
Submitted to
THE DEPARTMENT OF GEOSCIENCES
In partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the
degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE
GEOGRAPHY PROGRAM
July 2010
Directed by
Dr. Hannah Gosnell
Acknowledgements:
First and foremost I would like to thank my Advisor, Dr. Hannah Gosnell for her
support and mentorship not just on this project, but also during my entire time at Oregon
State University. From the beginning she has provided support for helping me establish
an interesting research project and always challenged me to dig deeper and get the most
out of graduate school. Additionally, I owe many thanks to Dr. Aaron Wolf and Dr.
Gregg Walker for serving on my committee and providing me with background necessary
for my research. I am grateful to Laura Van Riper, Susan Holtzman, and the rest of the
National Riparian Service Team for funding the program evaluation. They provided
valuable background and insight which was instrumental in guiding this research. I
would also like to acknowledge the other individuals who introduced me to the Klamath
Basin. Thanks to James Honey for connecting me with so many inspirational people in
the Basin, for always being a sounding board for research ideas, and for making my
graduate work locally relevant. Also I am indebted to Becky Hyde and the entire Hyde
family for welcoming me onto their ranch and into their home. You are truly
inspirational people and the Klamath Basin is a better place for all your hard work.
I have been very fortunate to have some outstanding peers to share this graduate
school experience with. While I cannot list them all, special thanks to my fellow
graduate students Bridget Brown, Kendra Hatcher, Andrew McFadden, Julia Rosen and
Jill Smedstad for providing me with refuge when school seemed overwhelming. I am a
better person for our two years of conversations and interactions. I owe my deepest
gratitude to my parents, Lindsey, Poppy and Julius for their continuous support and
confidence in me. And finally, I thank my soon-to-be husband, Bevan Frost, for his
unwavering love, support, encouragement and patience.
Table of Contents
Introduction......................................................................................................................... 1
Conceptual Framework: Social-Ecological Resilience and Adaptive Co-Management 2
The National Riparian Service Team.............................................................................. 4
Purpose and Research Questions ........................................................................................ 8
Methods............................................................................................................................. 10
Study Area: Upper Klamath Basin ............................................................................... 11
Background: NRST in the Upper Klamath Basin............................................................. 13
Steps Toward Cooperation............................................................................................ 16
Results: Effectiveness and Outcomes of the Creeks & Communities Strategy................ 17
Scientific and Technical Information............................................................................ 17
Collaborative Information and Tools............................................................................ 18
Riparian Management and Planning Information and Tools........................................ 20
Discussion ......................................................................................................................... 22
Toward Adaptive Co-Management............................................................................... 23
Timing and the Adaptive Cycle .................................................................................... 23
PFC as a Measure of Resilience.................................................................................... 24
PFC as a Communication Framework for Joint Fact Finding ...................................... 25
Cross-Scale Interactions................................................................................................ 28
The NRST as a Model for Government? Possibilities and Limitations........................ 31
Conclusions....................................................................................................................... 32
References......................................................................................................................... 34
Appendix 1: Interview Guide............................................................................................ 38
List of Figures
Figure 1. Adaptive Cycle.....................................................................................................3
Figure 2. Logic Model for the NRST’s Creeks & Communities Strategy……...…………7
Figure 3. Map of the Klamath Basin …………………………………………….………11
FOSTERING SOCIAL-ECOLOGICAL RESILIENCE IN THE UPPER KLAMATH
BASIN: THE NATIONAL RIPARIAN SERVICE TEAM’S CREEKS &
COMMUNITIES STRATEGY AS AN EMERGING MODEL FOR GOVERNMENT IN
ADAPTIVE CO-MANAGEMENT
Abstract
Social-ecological resilience theory is part of a new paradigm for understanding and
managing complex coupled human-ecological systems. The theory aims to inform
explorations of a system’s ability to withstand disturbance while maintaining its critical
functions. Adaptive co-management has been proposed as a governance mechanism that
can enhance resiliency by combining the shared learning components of adaptive
management with collaborative and community-based approaches to natural resource
management. This new paradigm poses a challenge for government agencies charged
with overseeing the nation’s natural resources, however, since many still embrace a more
traditional centralized, science-based decision making approach. The National Riparian
Service Team (NRST or Team), an interagency partnership between the U.S. Bureau of
Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service, is an example of a federal agency that is
experimenting with this new paradigm. This study draws on concepts associated with
resiliency and adaptive co-management as a basis for evaluating one aspect of the
NRST’s Creeks & Communities Strategy (Strategy), which was designed to address both
the technical and social aspects of riparian management across ownership boundaries
using a place-based approach to problem solving. Using the Upper Klamath Basin as a
case study, we found the NRST to be an effective catalyst for adaptive co-management,
at least in part because of the timing of its intervention, which occurred during what we
characterize as a phase of reorganization following the 2001 collapse of the socialecological system. Two major components of the Team’s approach are highlighted for
their role in promoting adaptive co-management and enhancing the resilience of the
Upper Klamath Basin social-ecological system: (1) the concept at the core of the NRST’s
approach to riparian health assessment, Proper Functioning Condition (PFC), which both
provides a qualitative measure of resilient capacity and promotes social learning and
joint-fact finding; and (2) the Team’s emphasis on collaboration and cross-scale
communication, which builds social capital and enhances community capacity to garner
resources from other scales. Finally, we suggest that while the NRST exemplifies an
effective and important new role for government actors in ecosystem management, there
are a number of barriers currently preventing this model from being widely adopted in
other government agencies.
Key Words: Adaptive co-management, collaborative management, government agencies,
resilience, riparian health
Introduction
Among both scholars and resource management practitioners there is a growing
recognition that the environmental problems facing the world today cannot be solved
solely by regulations and top-down mandates and that, in many cases, effective natural
resource management must involve local, collaborative elements and engage those
directly impacted and responsible for implementation of natural resource decisions. In
this context, federal agencies responsible for overseeing natural resource management in
the American West are being pressured to adjust to this new management paradigm and
support more bottom-up, place-based solutions. There are a number of barriers to the
adoption of these principles, however, including the legacy of the federal government’s
science-based management model that has guided natural resource decision making for
the past century.
Many scholars characterize the evolution of the federal approach to natural
resource management in terms of four phases, including facilitation of resource
exploitation during the nineteenth century; adoption of conservation principles during the
first half of the twentieth century; efforts at preservation through top-down federal
legislation beginning in the 1960s and 1970s; and most recently, promotion and support
of more collaborative, place-based solutions to conflicts over natural resource
management, an approach which began to emerge in the early 1990s (Koontz et al. 2004,
Meine 1995, Meine 2009, Nelson 1995).
This most recent phase has been marked by a move toward decentralized
governance and an evolving role for federal agencies as newer collaborative approaches
to natural resource management gain more prominence and respectability (Wondolleck
Page 2
and Yaffee 2000). While the federal government has largely been a follower, rather than
a leader in these efforts, there have been a series of government initiatives aimed at
affirming this new era of decentralized governance. Since 2000, 18 federal agencies have
adopted an ecosystem management approach with collaboration as a central tenet
(Koontz, et al. 2004); but in many cases, government participation in collaborative efforts
is seen as more of a hindrance than an advantage.
We propose that this relatively recent paradigm shift among practitioners
regarding effective approaches to natural resource management aligns with current
scholarly literature dealing with the nature of social-ecological systems and the role of
adaptive co-management in fostering social-ecological resilience, and that these concepts
can inform a framework for evaluating efforts by federal agencies to improve their
approach to protecting and restoring the natural resources under their purview.
Conceptual Framework: Social-Ecological Resilience and Adaptive Co-Management
The concept of resilience was first introduced by C. S. Holling (1973) who
defined it as the level of disturbance an ecosystem can withstand without shifting to a
new stable state and while maintaining its central processes and functions. This was
proposed as an alternative to the concept of ecological equilibrium and Clementsian
succession for explaining the variation and unpredictability observed in ecosystems. This
new way of thinking about ecosystems arose out of some of the failings of conservation
era policies, characterized by attempts at tight control of ecosystems, which often resulted
in significant ecosystem decline. Holling (1995) explained that attempts to tightly control
ecosystems can lead to “systems that are more likely to flip into a persistent degraded
state triggered by disturbances that previously could be absorbed.”
Page 3
Since its early conceptualization in ecology, resilience theory has been expanded
to recognize the interconnections between human and natural systems, referred to as
social-ecological systems (Berkes and Folke 1998, Levin 1998). There are four general
principles of resilience theory which can help explain the structure and function of socialecological systems: 1) change happens through an adaptive cycle (Figure 1), with natural
capital accumulating slowly (conservation phase) after a period of exploitation until an
unpredictable perturbation disrupts the system and causes an abrupt release and
reorganization of the system; 2) processes function across multiple scales in both space
and time; 3) multiple stable states exist for a given system, with stabilizing forces
enhancing productivity through resource optimization, and destabilizing forces
maintaining diversity and resilience; and 4) uncertainty within a system requires
flexibility and adaptive management as a tool for maintaining resilience (Gunderson and
Holling 2001, Holling 1996, Walker and Salt 2004).
Figure 1: Adaptive Cycle (Modified from Gunderson and Holling 2001)
Adaptive co-management has been suggested as the tool critical to linking the
theoretical framework of resilience theory to management actions (Armitage et al. 2009).
Page 4
The term comes from the combination of adaptive management and co-management
(Kofinas 2009). Adaptive management, most simply, can be thought of as “learning by
doing” (Walters 1986, Lee 1993). It offers managers a method for moving forward in
the face of uncertainty based on their current knowledge of the system and its
interactions. The idea is that management can be carried out in such a way that there is
an iterative process allowing for the design, implementation, monitoring, evaluation and
modification of management actions allowing new knowledge to guide future actions
(Lee 1993).
Co-management, or cooperative management, is the sharing of power and
responsibilities among local resource user communities and resource management
agencies (Hanna 1994). Olsson proposes that adaptive co-management is an emergent
property of resource management, not an arrangement that can be legislated top-down
(2004). This poses a challenging new role for government actors who historically have
been focused on regulations and incorporating public participation into a traditional
command and control, centralized, and science-based management paradigm that is illequipped to facilitate power sharing, collaboration, and joint fact-finding; and which
often pays insufficient attention to the human dimensions aspects of resource
management.
The National Riparian Service Team
Riparian areas exemplify the challenges faced by natural resource managers.
Because they link freshwater ecosystems and uplands they often face multiple sources of
pollution and use demands from both upland and upstream. Furthermore, riparian areas
are complex ecosystems with hydrological, biological, chemical, geophysical and
Page 5
climatic components, creating significant uncertainty for managers. Predictive models
have largely failed to capture the complexity of these ecosystems (Walker 2002).
Riparian areas almost always cross jurisdictions with any one riparian system traveling
through a mix of private, federal, state, and tribal land without regard for political
boundaries or the associated differences in management approaches. Because riparian
areas cover a large geographic space and provide freshwater, riparian areas often become
central to more fundamental conflicts around ecological values. Restoring damaged
riparian systems in a holistic, comprehensive way is challenging, requiring cooperative
management across public and private lands, often involving several agencies and
requiring a combination of technical and social approaches.
Recognizing the shortcomings of federal agency involvement in improving the
health of riparian areas around the West, and that “restoration will not happen by
regulation, changes in the law, more money, or any of the normal bureaucratic
approaches,” (RCS 2002: 5) agency heads from the BLM (Mike Dombeck) and Forest
Service (Jack Ward Thomas) signed a letter in 1996 agreeing to implement a program
they called Accelerating Cooperative Riparian Restoration and Management, which
aimed to integrate ecological and social factors in cooperative interagency management
and collaboration across jurisdictions involving all affected interests (RCS 2002). To
implement the program, the agencies established the National Riparian Service Team
(NRST or Team), an interagency team to administer an innovative strategy for riparian
management and restoration across the western United States, which they call the Creeks
& Communities Strategy. We suggest that the NRST’s mission and activities are, in
many ways, consistent with principles associated with resiliency and adaptive co-
Page 6
management, and that the NRST deserves further examination for its potential as a model
for government efforts to enhance resiliency in social-ecological systems.
The Creeks & Community Strategy (Strategy) is comprised of the Team’s vision,
guiding philosophy and tools and, in short, is aimed at “achieving healthy streams
through bringing people together” (RCN 2002). It includes the provision of (1) scientific
and technical information, including tools for understanding streams based on their
functionality and potential; (2) collaborative tools and information, including strategies
for encouraging problem solving and conflict resolution among diverse stakeholders; and
(3) management tools, including training in restoration planning and adaptive
management to build capacity for effecting ‘on the ground change’ (BLM et al. 2008,
RCN 2002).
Proper Functioning Condition (PFC) is the concept at the core of the Creeks &
Communities Strategy and serves as both an assessment tool and a method for
communicating stream functions between user groups. Stream assessments, carried out
by Interdisciplinary Teams (IDTs), can be used to classify a stream as nonfunctional,
functional at risk, or in proper functioning condition. The assessment often serves as a
starting point for discussions among stakeholders regarding the diverse values associated
with the stream (RCN 2002). The logic model in Figure 2, developed in consultation with
other members of our evaluation team and members of the NRST, depicts the envisioned
learning and behavior outcomes of the Creeks & Communities Strategy that should result
from these technical, social, and managerial components.
To accomplish its goals, the National Team – along with a coordinated network of
agency employees comprising State Riparian Teams – hosts trainings and workshops on
Page 7
topics relevant to their mission, including Proper Functioning Condition (PFC)
Assessment Trainings and Grazing Management Trainings. Some riparian situations
require more in-depth involvement, so the Team developed an approach they refer to as
Service Trips, which involve more long-term, place-based assistance carried out
exclusively by the National Team, which is comprised of experts in rangeland
management, hydrology, conflict resolution, and the human dimensions of natural
resource management (Figure 2).
!
"#$%&'(!
RS <=>*T)),)):,"6*
8-'$"$"F*
*
US /-'H$"F*
G'"'F,:,"6*
8-'$"$"F*
*
VS 4,-%$5,*8-$1)*
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
! •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
"))*+,-&*!.%&/0)*'!
7*-1#,#3!
!"#$%$#&'()*+,'-".*
45$,"6$2$5*7*8,59"$5'(*!"20-:'6$0";800()*
<=>*?@9'6*$6*$)*7*90@*60*')),))*$6A*
=&"56$0"*02*-$%,-)*'"#*-$1'-$'"*'-,')*
=&"56$0"*B,20-,*%'(&,)*
+$"C*B,6@,,"*-$1'-$'"*'"#*&1('"#)*
D0$"6*2'56E2$"#$"F*'11-0'59*
G'"'F,:,"6*'"#*:0"$60-$"F*)6-'6,F$,)*
>0"",56$0"*02*F-'H$"F*'"#*-$1'-$'"*
2&"56$0"*
>0(('B0-'6$%,*800();*!"20-:'6$0"*
!:10-6'"5,*02*@0-C$"F*@$69*#$%,-),*'"#*
'11-01-$'6,*F-0&1*02*1,01(,**
!:10-6'"5,*02*@0-C$"F*'5-0))*69,*
('"#)5'1,*
8$,)*60*('-F,-*@'6,-)9,#*?$:10-6'"5,*02*
('"#)5'1,*)5'(,*1,-)1,56$%,)A*
K0@*60*#,%,(01*50::0"*%$)$0";1('"*'6*
'"J*)5'(,*
>0"2($56*:'"'F,:,"6*
K0@*60*,22,56*P0"E69,EF-0&"#Q*59'"F,*
G'"'F,:,"6*)6-'6,F$,)*
<('")*69'6*'-,*,50"0:$5'((J*2,')$B(,*
3"#,-)6'"#*'#'16$%,*:'"'F,:,"6*
•
•
•
•
! •
•
•
•
•
"#&*1)*+,-&*!.%&/0)*'!
8*9-:,01!;9-#3*!
/-0&1)*02*!"#$%$#&'().*
!"#$%$#&'().*
3),*45$,"6$2$5*7*8,59"$5'(*!"20-:'6$0";800()*
3),)*<=>*600(*'"#*I0$"6*2'56E2$"#$"F* • 80F,69,-*&),*50"5,16)*'))05$'6,#*@$69*
'11-0'59*60*')),))*0@"*'-,'*
2&"56$0"'($6J*60*-,F&('-(J*')),))*
G0"$60-)*-$1'-$'"*'-,')*
@'6,-)9,#*50"#$6$0"*'"#*$"2(&,"5,*
3),)*%'-$0&)*:'"'F,:,"6*
:'"'F,:,"6*)6-'6,F$,)*
)6-'6,F$,)*
• 80F,69,-*&),*<=>*')*'*B-$#F$"F*
>0")$#,-)*2&"56$0"*')*'*B')$)*20-*
50::&"$5'6$0"*600(*69'6*1('5,)*
5-,'6$"F*-$1'-$'"*%'(&,)*@9,"*
2&"56$0"*'9,'#*02*%'(&,)*60*:'"'F,*
')),))$"F*-$1'-$'"*'-,')**
50"2($56*
3),*>0(('B0-'6$%,*800();*!"20-:'6$0"*
>0(('B0-'6,)*'5-0))*0@",-)9$1)*60* • 80F,69,-*500-#$"'6,*50(('B0-'6$%,*
-,)0(%,*0@"*$))&,)*
:'"'F,:,"6*
L,%,(01)*%$)$0";1('"*20-*0@"*'-,'* • >0(('B0-'6,*60F,69,-*'5-0))*
M,50F"$H,)*'"#*:'"'F,)*0@"*
B0&"#'-$,)*60*-,)0(%,*-$1'-$'"*$))&,*
-$1'-$'"*'-,'*50"2($56*,22,56$%,(J*
• 49'-,*'*%$)$0";1('"*
• N0-C*60F,69,-*60*-,)0(%,*50::&"$6J*
-$1'-$'"*50"2($56)*,22,56$%,(J*
21031-)!40-56!
70#3<=*1)!.%&/0)*!
!
O22,56*P0"E69,EF-0&"#Q*59'"F,*
T11($,)*:'"'F,:,"6*)6-'6,F$,)*60* • N0-C*60F,69,-*60*#,%,(01*'"#*
'$:*20-*#,)$-,#*0-*#,)$F",#*-$1'-$'"*
$:1(,:,"6*'*:'"'F,:,"6*1('"*B'),#*
F0'()*'"#*0BI,56$%,)*
0"*F0'()*'"#*0BI,56$%,)*69'6*'-,*
L,%,(01)*1('")*69'6*'-,*
,50"0:$5'((J*2,')$B(,*
,50"0:$5'((J*2,')$B(,*
!
Figure 2: Logic Model for the NRST's Creeks & Communities Strategy
*
Following a 2003 evaluation of the NRST (Van Riper 2003) that identified
inadequate attention to the human dimensions of riparian management, the NRST
increased its commitment to the Service Trip component of the Strategy. Service Trips
are usually multi-phased, involving multiple interactions with local stakeholders over
long periods of time. A set of principles guides NRST’s actions on the Service Trips,
including bringing affected interests together to build relationships, developing a
89,*)&55,))2&(*
:'"'F,:,"6*'"#*
-,)60-'6$0"*02*-$1'-$'"*
'-,')W*69-0&F90&6*69,*
),-%$5,*'-,'S***
Page 8
community information base, and empowering people to create change and leverage
resources. The length of time, topics covered, and methods used for each Service Trip
are highly variable and the NRST adjusts its approach to deal with the specific situation.
The NRST has carried out Service Trips in a number of locales, and this study
evaluates the agency’s performance in the Upper Klamath Basin drawing on principles
associated with resiliency and adaptive co-management. The Klamath is representative of
the landscape of controversy associated with riparian management in much of the
American West. Tribal water rights, endangered fish species, irrigated agriculture, and
hydropower dams all converge to create a complicated science and policy challenge. The
NRST was involved in the Basin from 2002 to 2006 and during that time worked to
address both technical and social challenges specific to the Basin by building local
capacity to problem solve.
In the following pages we describe the purpose of the study and specific research
questions and methods; then provide an overview of the NRST’s activities in the Upper
Klamath Basin. We then present key findings related to the effectiveness of the agency’s
activities and associated social and ecological outcomes. Our discussion focuses on the
ways in which the NRST’s approach in the Klamath aligns with principles espoused in
the resilience and adaptive co-management literature, and how the NRST approach might
serve as a model for government involvement in natural resource management.
Purpose and Research Questions
While theories regarding social-ecological resilience are growing in acceptance,
questions continue to emerge about how to apply resilience theory and adaptive co-
Page 9
management to complex, real world systems. Furthermore, much of the literature has
focused on the roles non-governmental actors and bridging organizations can play in
fostering resilience (e.g. Folke et al. 2005, Olsson et al. 2007, Koontz et al. 2004) versus
the roles government agencies might play. This paper addresses those knowledge gaps by
exploring the ways in which adaptive co-management can foster and enhance resilience
in a social-ecological system, and the potential role federal agencies can play in
facilitating such an approach to management.
The specific questions this paper addresses focus on the effectiveness and
outcomes of the Creeks & Communities Strategy as implemented in the Upper Klamath
Basin, and relate to the logic model in Figure 2.
1) How effective was the NRST in conveying scientific and technical information to
community members in the Upper Klamath Basin and enhancing understanding of
riparian function?
2) How effective was the NRST in catalyzing the use of collaborative tools and
information to promote communication across scales, collaboration, and conflict
management?
3) How effective was the NRST in catalyzing an adaptive co-management approach
to planning for restoration and improving the health of riparian areas?
Our discussion then considers the ways in which the National Riparian Service Team’s
Creeks & Communities Strategy aligns with concepts and principles in scholarly
literature dealing with social-ecological resilience and adaptive co-management; and how
lessons learned from the Klamath Basin case study can be applied to more general
questions about the role of government agencies in adaptive co-management.
Page 10
Methods
This study was carried out as part of a comprehensive program evaluation of the
National Riparian Service Team’s Creeks & Communities Strategy. The evaluation
utilizes an explanatory case study framework to relate on-the-ground outputs and
outcomes associated with NRST’s activities to a theoretical proposition, the program
logic model in Figure 2 (Berg 2007, Yin 1994). The full evaluation includes two
components: a quantitative survey sent to PFC and grazing training session participants;
and in-depth, qualitative, field-based case studies in places where Service Trips were
carried out. The Upper Klamath Basin (a.k.a. Sprague River) case, carried out during
Summer 2009, served as a pilot for seven additional case studies completed during
summer and fall 2010.
For background on the Klamath case we facilitated a full-day focus group with
the four Team members who implemented the Upper Klamath Basin Service Trip. We
then conducted ten semi-structured interviews with individuals who participated in NRST
activities associated with the multi-phased Service Trip there (see Interview Guide in
Appendix 1). Two of the interviewees were federal employees, five were private
landowners in the Basin, and three were key local partners associated with restoration and
conservation non-profit organizations. Five other participants were contacted but declined
interviews. All interviews were transcribed and coded using NVivo software to facilitate
better understanding of the effectiveness and outcomes associated with the NRST’s
Service Trip activities. Codes used pattern-matching to identify and organize pieces of
information that relate to the theoretic propositions in the logic model and in the scholarly
literature (Berg 2007, Yin 1994).
Page 11
Document analysis facilitated a better understanding of the breadth of the NRST’s
work around the West and helped put the Klamath case into context. Documents included
reports describing other Service Trips and trainings, meeting minutes, assignment
completion memos, formal written requests for NRST service, and recordings from other
focus groups with Team members dealing with the other Service Trip case studies.
Study Area: Upper Klamath Basin
The Klamath Basin spans over 15,000 square miles in south central Oregon and
northern California (Figure 3). It is further divided into two sub-basins, the Upper
Klamath Basin and the Lower Klamath Basin which are geographically, climatically, and
socially very different. The NRST’s work in the Klamath Basin took place in the Upper
Klamath Basin, in an area known as the “off project lands” – agricultural land (mostly
ranching) in the Sprague and Williamson River Valleys that is distinct from the U.S.
Bureau of Reclamation’s Klamath Irrigation Project.
Figure 2: The Klamath Basin, Showing the location of NRST’s work
Page 12
The physical geography, historic conflict between the four Basin tribes and the
irrigation communities, the ESA, and the cumbersome nature of unresolved water rights
are all necessary context to understanding the conflicts in the Klamath Basin; but a
detailed recounting is beyond the scope of this paper (for background, see, e.g., Doremus
and Tarlock 2008, Gosnell and Kelly 2010). Suffice to say that conflicts over the
recovery of the fish and other resource management issues came to a head in Summer
2001 when a drought, combined with the poorly timed release of a federal ruling related
to the ESA dictating minimum water levels for Upper Klamath Lake and minimum flows
in the Lower Klamath River, resulted in the curtailment of water to irrigators on the
Klamath Project to allow for in-stream flows for the fish. The irrigation community
erupted, holding symbolic ‘Bucket Brigade’ protests and soliciting national support for
their economic losses. In the years that followed, there was a massive influx of federal
and state resources to help address the Klamath crisis and prevent similar catastrophes
from happening in the future; but a growing sense that dollars and isolated restoration
projects would be inadequate.
Since it was determined by a number of federal agencies that the health of the
aquatic ecosystems upon which the fish depend hinges in large part on the health of the
riparian areas in the Sprague River sub-basin; and since recovery would require
coordinated management of those riparian areas, the NRST was asked to provide
assistance in 2002 by Sustainable Northwest, a nonprofit organization based in Portland
that had been working in the Basin.
Page 13
Background: NRST in the Upper Klamath Basin
The NRST’s involvement in the Basin primarily centered around two projects, the
Yainix Project and the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board’s Watershed Assessment
process. Various individuals from the Team, however, have longstanding relationships
with community members and have been active in both official and unofficial activities
that promote the NRST’s approach to riparian management and restoration.
The Yainix Project was initiated by Becky and Taylor Hyde, who were proposing
to purchase the Yainix Ranch in the Upper Sprague River Valley, a property with a
heavily degraded stretch of river, riparian and upland areas. Their goal was to restore the
property and provide a model for ranching that could be applied across the region. The
request to NRST had two parts. The first was for technical expertise in the development
of a Working Lands Conservation Easement that included a ‘duty to restore’ the land
under easement. The NRST would help develop a method of evaluating and
benchmarking ecological outcomes. The second component of the request to NRST was
in creating a community dialogue of restoration obstacles and opportunities so that the
work on the Yainix Ranch could potentially influence similar coordinated restoration
efforts across the region.
The NRST’s first attempt at initiating a community dialogue was at a public
meeting in Beatty. Tribal members, environmentalists, and landowners were not
comfortable being in the same room together at that time, however, and following
introductions, nearly all participants left. Based on recommendations from the remaining
participants, the Team decided that smaller meetings with individual landowners would
be a more effective way to engage locals. These “living room-to-living room sessions”
Page 14
were coordinated by individuals and the Klamath Basin Ecosystem Foundation (KBEF),
a local conservation organization, and ranged from informal meetings with individual
landowners to small presentations involving a group of neighbors. According to the
NRST, “the purpose of these dialogue sessions was to listen so that the Team could
become grounded in landowner needs, help design outreach and assistance, connect with
people who would not normally attend a community meeting, and discover ideas for
collaboration where trust was lacking among perceived adversaries” (NRST 2009: 53).
Seeing the benefits of partnerships from their work with Sustainable Northwest
and others on the Yainix Project, those involved decided to formalize the partnership in
January 2005, creating the Working Landscape Alliance (WLA). The WLA is a
collaboration of organizations and individuals brought together by the same mission: “to
support the emergence of sustainable working ranches and landscapes through restoration
and conservation of ecological health, creation of dynamic local and regional economic
opportunities, and honoring and engaging the full diversity of people and cultures that
share the western landscape” (WLA 2005). From that point forward, NRST involvement
in the Klamath Basin occurred as part of the WLA, a unique, hybrid
governmental/nongovernmental entity.
In 2005 KBEF called on the WLA to assist with a collaborative effort to complete
community-based watershed assessments covering the 33 sub-basins in the Upper
Klamath Basin. These were part of the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board’s
(OWEB) watershed assessment program, which, among other things, encourages (and
partially funds) local organizations to complete sub-basin level evaluations. Leadership at
KBEF felt watershed assessments in their area could be made more effective by
Page 15
increasing field days and other opportunities for interaction, relationship building and
learning. They submitted a request for the WLA to conduct the public outreach
component of the assessment process for the Upper Sprague and Lower Sprague-Lower
Williamson watersheds.
For each of the watershed assessments the WLA hosted a three-day workshop
designed primarily by the NRST. Workshops involved trainings on Proper Functioning
Condition, assessment tools, methods for joint fact finding, and monitoring programs.
Each month, a ‘field day’ was held at a strategic location to experiment with the new
approach and encourage difficult community discussions about a particular piece of land.
After each field day the WLA would organize two or three private landowner visits (at
the invitation of those landowners). WLA members would walk sections of stream with
the owner and discuss the conditions of their riparian or upland areas and options for
management and restoration. This format was used for the Upper Sprague watershed
assessment in 2005 and then the Lower Sprague-Lower Williamson watershed
assessment in 2006.
Throughout their involvement in the Yainix Project and the watershed assessment
process, Team members presented at various meetings and workshops, including the
Klamath Watershed Conference in 2004. They also hosted a training session for riparian
vegetation monitoring in 2005 and presented at several lunchtime meetings of the
Sprague River Working Group, a sub-group within the Upper Klamath Watershed
Council.
Page 16
Steps Toward Cooperation
During this time period (2002-2006) there were several other organizations and
individuals working in the Basin, including the Bureau of Reclamation, which hosted a
series of “listening sessions” Basin-wide. This was followed by Basin-wide talks during
which a facilitator encouraged a group process giving all stakeholders the space to be
heard. At about the same time, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC )
relicensing process began for the four dams on the Klamath, instigating a series of Basinwide negotiations partially motivated to stave off the likely lawsuits from such a
controversial process. In the ‘off project’ part of the Basin, KBEF and Klamath
Watershed Council (KWC) were building relationships between ranchers and building
support for restoration on private lands. All of these actions contributed to a culture of
growing trust, collaboration, and openness to new approaches to restoration (Gosnell and
Kelly 2010).
Between 2006 and 2010 many members of the larger Klamath Basin community
worked to develop the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement (KBRA). The KBRA is a
negotiated agreement that outlines a shared vision for water allocation and restoration
throughout the Basin. The agreement ensures that more water will be left in-stream for
environmental considerations (including the sucker and salmon). In return the irrigation
community will be provided with greater certainty in their water supply. Real time
reporting and annual reports will be required to assess the performance of the KBRA to
facilitate adaptive management in both the short and the long term. The agreement also
details plans for restoration of critical riparian areas, outlines Safe Harbor Agreements for
private landowners subject to ESA enforcement, and calls for the removal of the four
Page 17
major dams along the Klamath River (KBRA 2010). This historic agreement was signed
by the negotiating parties and several political leaders, including the governors from
Oregon and California, in February 2010. While not all stakeholders Basin-wide support
the agreement, it represents a significant step towards adaptive co-management in a basin
that less than a decade ago was a maelstrom of water conflict.
Results: Effectiveness and Outcomes of the Creeks & Communities Strategy
The larger NRST program evaluation centered around four main categories: 1)
effectiveness of approach; 2) outcomes; 3) barriers to success; and 4) suggestions for
improvement. This section contains an analysis of the effectiveness and outcomes of the
NRST’s activities in the Upper Klamath Basin, focusing on the three elements in the
logic model (Figure 2).
Scientific and Technical Information
When asked about the Team’s technical expertise most interviewees perceived the
NRST as comprised of leading experts on riparian ecology and range management. A
number of landowners and local conservation leaders stated that their overall knowledge
regarding riparian and grazing management increased as a result of NRST’s involvement
in the Basin. They contrasted the NRST’s approach to that of other government agencies
that promoted very specific management actions rather than a more holistic
understanding of the stream system.
The benefits of Proper Functioning Condition as an assessment method and
communication tool were widely recognized. For many participants, especially those
Page 18
without a background in ecology, PFC provided improved knowledge and understanding
of riparian geomorphology, hydrology and biology.,
“I now have a conversational level of knowledge about river dynamics that I
would not have [without the NRST]. It is actually pretty remarkable … there
is no doubt that I can talk the functionality of creeks and rivers in a much
more informed way” (9, Interview 2009)1.
While interviewees did reflect on the effectiveness of PFC as a technical tool,
they repeatedly emphasized that it was its ability to bridge social and ecological
dimensions of riparian management that contributed to the observed outcomes. The
NRST’s approach emphasizes that stream function must be achieved before management
can focus on values (such as fish habitat or clean water), a concept that participants felt
provided a framework for discussing the ecological system free from the values-laden
positions normally espoused by stakeholders. In the case of the watershed assessment
this allowed for joint-fact finding, providing the common ecological framework to
prioritize management actions.
Collaborative Information and Tools
Participants praised NRST for acknowledging the social and human dimensions
of riparian management within a technical framework. The primary audiences for NRST
programs in the Upper Klamath Basin were private landowners and tribal members. The
NRST was able to effectively connect these historically adversarial entities because of
some key components of their approach. First, the Team was seen as encouraging rather
1
Each interviewee was assigned a number to protect anonymity.
Page 19
than fault-finding or regulating. Second, the Team’s approach, language, and material
were accessible to non-scientists. It resonated with many landowners’ local ecological
knowledge of streams and riparian functions based on their observations from years of
“watching the stream” (2, Interview 2009). Third, field days leveled the power dynamics
since they took place on properties and landscapes familiar to the participants, and they
allowed for informal discussions between formerly adversarial groups.
Landowners and agency employees alike saw the Team’s ability to listen to
landowners as critical to their success. This came up in reference to the living room-toliving room listening sessions, the workshops and the field days. Several agency
employees reflected on learning active listening skills from the NRST and landowners
felt empowered by interacting with technical experts who listened to them.
The most significant outcomes were increased communication and improved
relationships between agencies, landowners, and the Klamath Tribes. Because of the way
the government had implemented the ESA and other past experiences, many landowners
were extremely distrustful and nervous about agency involvement in private lands
restoration. Interviewees provided many examples of specific landowners who
previously had not allowed any non-ranchers on their land, but who invited the NRST to
walk their stream with them and talk about restoration. Several landowners expressed
that the knowledge and understanding they gained from the NRST had allowed them to
be more comfortable approaching government agencies for help and support. They felt
more equipped to understand the merits and risks associated with different restoration
projects that are frequently promoted by the federal government.
Page 20
Riparian Management and Planning Information and Tools
In terms of planning and management, the Creeks & Communities Strategy
promotes a natural recovery approach to restoration when possible rather than big
engineering projects, and several landowners and agency people indicated that they had
seen a significant shift in the community’s approach to restoration, increasingly turning
to natural recovery as a first option. They cited the benefits of the more passive approach
they learned about from the NRST, including significant cost-savings, lower risk to
landowners, and better likelihood of riparian recovery in the long run.
Many people reflected on changes in their community’s attitudes toward
restoration, stating that there is now momentum in the Basin for restoration. One
interviewee commented,
“There is change happening over time… And people are starting to—there are
starting to be little touch points of people who are responding to that, and it
kind of builds on itself: They did this [restoration project] here and they did
this here and that wasn’t too scary. And now we are doing this and they are
doing this” (1, Interview 2009).
Another rancher said, “It just seemed to be that one ranch after the next … was trying to
do the same thing” (2, Interview 2009).
The Yainix Ranch conservation easement is one of the most tangible outcomes of
the NRST’s involvement in the Basin and relates to the Strategy’s emphasis on enhancing
capacity for riparian management and restoration planning. PFC has been adopted as a
benchmark for determining compliance with the terms of the conservation easement.
Unlike most conservation easements, which specify management activities and place
Page 21
restrictions on the owner, this one is based on ‘affirmative obligation’ to restore the
riparian areas to PFC, placing more trust and accountability on the landowners. The PFC
and monitoring systems in place are designed to ensure that the riparian area of the
property maintains or improves its ecological function. Since the easement was put into
place, the riparian area has undergone well-documented dramatic improvements and is
now a local example of how a very degraded piece of property can be transformed into a
healthy stream and upland while maintaining a viable agricultural operation. Another
innovative aspect of the Yainix Ranch easement is that it is held by the Klamath Tribes,
which represents a significant step towards improved tribal/non-tribal relationships in the
Basin.
While the results of our evaluation were mostly positive, we acknowledge a few
limitations associated with our ability to determine outcomes. First, in terms of ecological
outcomes, it was difficult to establish concrete linkages between NRST activities and
ecological change in the Basin. Many interviewees were reluctant to attribute specific
ecological outcomes to the Team because of potential conflation with other factors,
environmental regulations, unrelated restoration efforts, and the natural fluctuation of
ecological systems. Others cautioned that while they have faith that the NRST approach
works, there is a time lag between developing an idea, finding funding, implementing the
project, and seeing results, which might not allow observation of outcomes after just four
or five years. Many spoke of improvements in the ecological conditions in a vague way,
however, for example:
“These guys are taking it right to the ground and we are seeing improvements,
real indisputable improvements” (3, Interview 2009).
Page 22
“My own personal opinion is that this group is—I think they have been one of
the most effective means of getting conservation onto the ground” (6,
Interview 2009).
“They have certainly had a positive influence” (5, Interview 2009).
Similarly, attributing specific social and political outcomes exclusively to the
NRST’s involvement in the Basin is problematic. Several participants suggested that the
NRST’s contribution to positive change in the Basin was limited to its ability to leverage
and engage local resources and catalyze new, emergent approaches to collaborative
resource management. The outcomes listed by participants ranged from those that could
be directly linked to NRST, such as improved knowledge and understanding of riparian
function and facilitation techniques, to ones that must be seen in a larger context, such as
the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement.
Discussion
With these results in mind we turn now to a consideration of the ways in which
the NRST’s principles and strategies are consistent with literature regarding managing for
social-ecological resilience. We suggest that the NRST’s Creeks & Communities
Strategy represents an effective new model for government in adaptive co-management.
The Team’s involvement in the Basin coincided with a period of reorganization, which
created space for new ideas on riparian management. Several components of the Team’s
approach helped foster adaptive co-management and incorporated key concepts from
resilience theory. First, the Team’s assessment tool, Proper Functioning Condition
(PFC), allows for the measuring of resilience in riparian ecosystem functions. Second,
Page 23
PFC provides a communication framework that promotes joint-fact finding, establishes a
common vocabulary amongst stakeholders, and acknowledges slow variables. Finally
field days, workshops, and facilitation activities allowed for cross-scale idea sharing,
promoting better communication between stakeholders and allowing resources to be
shared both vertically and horizontally. Many of the outcomes and achievements
observed in the Upper Klamath Basin are indicative of emerging adaptive comanagement in which the community turns to government agency expertise to help
navigate the community-based problem solving process. The NRST’s Service Trip
component thus demonstrates a new model for government agencies, one based on
enabling and facilitating local processes rather than legislating and controlling.
Toward Adaptive Co-Management
When discussing the Sprague case study the Team expressed concern about the
extent to which this Service Trip could represent the NRST approach to Service Trips in
general, since it had many ‘unique’ characteristics, such as the large private lands
component, the partnership with the WLA, and the longstanding relationships between
members of the Team and members of the community. We suggest, however, that NRST
activities in the Sprague, however ‘unique’, exemplify the Team’s flexibility and
commitment to adjusting its approach to local conditions to maximize their effectiveness
– a sign of inter-organizational adaptability.
Timing and the Adaptive Cycle
Social-ecological systems are understood to go through four distinct phases,
exploitation, conservation, release and reorganization, often represented as an adaptive
cycle (Figure 1). The Klamath Basin saw a long period of exploitation and rapid growth
Page 24
starting with the early white settlement. During this period, as predicted by Holling,
connectedness and efficiency increased, aided by the Bureau of Reclamation with the
creation of the Klamath Irrigation Project and dams. The conservation phase is marked
by rigidity and resources being expropriated and controlled by an increasingly few
entities, as was seen in more recent years in the Klamath Basin. The 2001/2002 crises
can be seen as the subsequent disturbance (both political and ecological) causing the
release of the system. What has followed has been a series of efforts at reorganization,
the most noteworthy being the KBRA.
NRST became involved in the Klamath Basin right as the system entered the
fourth phase, reorganization. The focus group with implementers revealed that much of
the Team’s decision to go on a Service Trip when they are requested depends on
“ripeness”. The adaptive cycle can provide some insight into what is meant by
“ripeness”. Holling (2001, p. 396) explains, “innovation occurs in pulses or surges when
uncertainty is great, potential is high and controls are weak, so that novel recombination
can form.” The NRST’s timing in the Basin and ability and willingness to adapt their
strategy to meet the communities where they were was critical.
PFC as a Measure of Resilience
One of the criticisms of resilience theory is that resilience is difficult to measure
and quantify and is often just a descriptive concept (Brand and Jax 2007). We are left
trying to identify the resilience of what? Tools exist to measure many scientific
processes, but thus far efforts have largely been seen as insufficient to measure something
as multifaceted, interdisciplinary and place specific as resilience (Cumming et al. 2005,
Asah 2008). Many agree that ecosystem function (also defined as key components and
Page 25
relationships in Cumming et al. 2005) is a good surrogate for measuring resilience
(Walker et al. 1999).
The Creeks & Communities Strategy and its focus on PFC as an assessment tool
may come close to accomplishing this task, albeit in a qualitative way. It requires an
interdisciplinary team to assess the functionality compared to the potential for the system.
The definition of a functioning riparian area is directly related to its ability to withstand
relatively high flow events (described as 5-, 10- and 20- year events) (BLM 2010). The
basis of this logic is that a stream is ecologically functioning if it can dissipate stream
energy associated with high flows, filter sediments, capture bedload and aid floodplain
development, improve flood-water retention and ground-water recharge, and develop root
masses that stabilize streambanks against cutting action. These components are assessed
using a twelve-question yes/no checklist. What is more, each item on the checklist has a
series of associated quantifications. For example, the Greenline Stability Rating can be
used to quantify Number 11: “Adequate riparian-wetland vegetative cover is present to
protect banks and dissipate energy during high flows.” While this might not provide a
quantitative and measurable concept that can be used in the ecological sciences to
objectively “measure” resilience directly, it does provide managers a useful tool for
objectively assessing the critical components of a stream, and determining the ability of
riparian systems to withstand disturbance without changing states.
PFC as a Communication Framework for Joint Fact Finding
Much of the adaptive co-management and resilience literature calls for the sort of
shared learning amongst stakeholders that is instigated by the joint fact finding the PFC
approach relies on as a communication tool (Armitage et al. 2009, Daniels and Walker
Page 26
2001, Karl et al. 2007). Interviews with participants supported this view. One of the most
notable outcomes we identified was that that the community was able to better
communicate complex ecological concepts between different user groups. Many used the
language of PFC to describe physical changes they had seen to the riparian area. When
the consultant released a draft of the Upper Sprague Watershed Assessment, for example,
the citizens were outraged that it did not reflect the learning and joint fact-finding that
had taken place during the public outreach component of the watershed assessment
process. Many felt that they were knowledgeable enough about riparian function to assist
with the re-writing of the document and that incorporating the joint-fact finding process
was more valuable than a technically rigorous document. Kofinas (2009, p. 86) refers to
institutions being called upon to assist in adaptive co-management through this process of
shared learning: “Negotiating the differences in worldview between groups sufficiently to
achieve effective social-ecological governance may require the development of common
vocabulary and mutually agreed upon protocols to establish shared visions of problems.”
In the Klamath Basin the NRST was able to effectively encourage this type of common
vocabulary and protocol. During one of the interviews a stakeholder explained,
“One way to describe it is there are the technical purists over here and the
PFC guys sort of came in over here and these guys weren’t all that thrilled
about it but it still didn’t do what they wanted it to do so they went even
farther. … I would say that it is as technically rigorous as it needs to be. And
if your goal is to effect change on the ground and within communities, even if
the criteria and the parameters are strictly ecological this is still better than
this because these guys will sit there and crunch their numbers and run their
Page 27
models and not a damn thing is happening. Nor will they ever; except journal
articles and obscure paper presentations. But these guys are taking it right to
the ground and we are seeing improvements. Real sort of indisputable
improvements” (6, Interview 2009).
PFC provides a scientific framework and structure to discuss riparian restoration free of
values, something that was critical in moving the Upper Klamath Basin communities
forward in riparian restoration given the recent conflict. The NRST’s approach is
successful at addressing some of the failings of the traditional scientific-expert-asdecision-maker paradigm. PFC provided a toolset for understanding stream processes
and communicating between multiple groups, empowering local actors to develop
meaningful and locally relevant policies.
One of the most striking things about the NRST’s approach was that it allowed
participants to view a riparian area as existing on a continuum of recovery, providing
them with the foresight and trust necessary to endure the slower rate of change required
by natural (or passive) recovery. One rancher explained how members of the NRST
came to their property, explained to them what vegetation they had and what they could
expect if they altered their management regime to allow the vegetation to stabilize the
stream banks. The NRST’s description of the system’s potential provided them with a
conception of an alternate stable state (functional riparian), based on the controlling of
slow variables. Many other landowners and restoration consultants praised the NRST for
building popular support for more passive, natural restoration resulting in the
communities moving away from big-engineering (quick) projects. By understanding the
Page 28
system’s potential and having experience with slow variables, such as vegetation for bank
stability, the NRST was able to slow the human scale to match the ecological scale.
Cross-Scale Interactions
The social-ecological system is composed of many interrelated horizontal subcomponents at any one scale (horizontal scale). These scales are posited as nested
hierarchies that have influence over each other both from above and below (vertical
scale); effective management recognizes this and utilizes the positive influences of scale
to maximize resilience. Prior to the 2001 crisis, Upper Klamath Basin horizontal
relationships were weak between local actors, e.g. members of the agricultural
community, the Tribes, and the state and federal agencies. When describing the preNRST conditions in the region many spoke of outright hostility between these
stakeholders. As described above, the NRST’s first attempt at connecting across
horizontal scales was the public meeting in Beatty in which all but 8-10 people stormed
out following introductions. The NRST’s approach to listening, however, combined with
the field days worked to break down some of those barriers and draw diverse (tribal,
agricultural, agency) audiences together to discuss riparian restoration.
The value of active listening is well known and discussed in conflict resolution
texts (e.g. Daniels and Walker 2001) but often gets overlooked by other social scientists
trying to document macro-level trends rather than individual transformation. The NRST
strategy in the Klamath Basin was flexible enough to recognize that communication and
trust building needed to happen at the individual level, living room-to-living room before
larger change could be made Basin-wide. One of the most significant outcomes from the
NRST program evaluation was improved relationships between local level actors.
Page 29
The approach taken with the Yainix Ranch conservation easement is an example
of the NRST leveraging resources at one scale with the hope of influencing other scales.
It is rare that federal agencies would get permission to put so many resources into one
ranch on one piece of private (not BLM or Forest Service) land. Because variables at the
smaller scale are capable of changing faster than variables at a larger scale, the Yainix
Ranch was seen as a microcosm for restoration in the Basin. The assumption guiding the
easement was that instigating change at that scale was possible, and could potentially
“scale up” and influence similar projects across the Basin.
There are several other outcomes of the Yainix Project. During part of the
conservation easement process those involved decided the Klamath Tribes should hold
the easement. This resulted in a series of discussions and eventually relationships and
trust between at least a few individuals from the ranching and tribal communities.
Although linear causality cannot be drawn, those interviewed felt there was a relationship
between these early trust building communications and the vastly improved tribalnontribal relationships in the Upper Klamath Basin, which helped create space for the
formation of the KBRA (Gosnell and Kelly 2010). In this way, one small action by the
NRST was able to cross both horizontal and vertical scales, improving communication
and building social capital Basin-wide.
The NRST also played a critical role on other landowners’ properties, connecting
individuals at one scale with resources and capital at another. Many described restoration
projects that came out of informal conversations during the field trip in which a local
conservation organization employee was present who could help the landowner write a
grant, and a federal employee was there to explain what funding was available. These
Page 30
cross-scale collaborations continued after the NRST left, but primarily through the
agency individuals who had been present during the NRST visits and who had a
reputation of working well with private landowners.
The NRST was able to bring with it critical resources not otherwise available to
the communities at a time when they were needed. One restoration specialist described
how she had been advocating for many of the same grazing management practices
promoted by the NRST for years; but because the Team was comprised of well-known
Washington-level experts, the message was more effective at reaching the local
managers.
“I’ve been screaming that the whole cow in a riparian area is not bad. And all
I got was—shut up, you don’t know what you’re talking about. And then to
have some big wheels come in and say the same thing—it was like, thank
you! So personally they gave me the boost I needed. [To have them say,]
‘Yeah I think you are on the right track’ was great for me personally. Because
I thought, well, maybe you’re just nuts because nobody is agreeing with you.
And I kept saying these streams will recover if you give them a chance. And
all I got was a bunch of hassle. So for me personally that was just incredible”
(9, Interview 2009).
In order to assess the extent to which the NRST exemplifies an emerging role for
government in adaptive co-management it is critical to look at how the Team’s influence
might have been different than that of a similar non-governmental organization. Perhaps
most notable is that in the Klamath Basin, the Team was able to meaningfully support
local adaptive co-management efforts by providing resources from other scales (top level
Page 31
riparian experts and conflict resolution processes) that an NGO may not have been able to
access as easily.
The NRST as a Model for Government? Possibilities and Limitations
The innovation demonstrated by the NRST in the Klamath Basin raises questions
about the extent to which its vision and approach might serve as a model for other federal
agencies involved in natural resource management. The Team’s existence within the
BLM and Forest Service suggests that there is at least some federal agency support for
more collaborative, community-based, adaptive management practices, and the current
Administration often uses language consistent with these concepts. We suggest that the
potential exists for this model to be “scaled up”, influencing the organizational structure
and mission of its parent organizations and other land management agencies, especially
given the growing interest in new social and ecological paradigms for managing the
nation’s natural resources (discussed earlier in the paper); and the demand for more
effective approaches to engaging the public in management and decision making. The
Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), with its long history of providing
technical resources to private landowners, is also well positioned to adopt some of the
NRST’s strategies, assuming the right personnel were involved.
There are a number of potential barriers to scaling up the NRST approach in the
federal government, however, both internal and external. First, as a number of Klamath
interviewees noted, much of the leadership within the NRST is approaching (or past)
retirement age and it is not clear how the Team’s work can be carried on within the BLM
and Forest Service. During the implementers’ focus group, Team members also
acknowledged this problem, citing the hiring and promotion process in government
Page 32
agencies as an enormous barrier to recruiting the kind of leader necessary. They
explained that they have little control over the selection process, and that very few
supervisors in the BLM and Forest Service have the necessary background in riparian and
range management, and even fewer in the human dimensions of natural resource
management and conflict resolution.
In addition to the internal limitations within the NRST to sustain its vision and
build on past successes, there are a number of broader barriers within the federal
government as a whole, including: 1) lack of institutional mechanisms and incentives for
collaboration; 2) agency culture; 3) difficulty institutionalizing something as necessarily
variable as adaptive co-management; 4) existing procedural obligations and
requirements; 5) and lack of trust in the “public” (Cortner et al. 1998, Cortner et al.
1996, Lachapelle et al. 2003, Cheng 2009). The NRST was established in spite of these
barriers, but it is unclear whether the Team is an anomaly in the federal government that
will fade as the key actors retire; or if it might play a formative role in the shaping of
agency approaches to resource management in the future.
Conclusions
We conclude that the NRST’s Creeks & Communities Strategy, as implemented
in the Klamath Basin, has proved itself to be an effective new institutional paradigm for
federal agencies involved in natural resource management. The NRST was effective
because they were able to provide a technical and social framework for the community to
gather and understand information about stream function and improve communication
through conflict resolution. As a result of their involvement there now exist indicators of
Page 33
successful adaptive co-management in the Upper Klamath Basin. There is greater trust,
communication and coordination between formerly adversarial groups; there are local
efforts at community problem solving; the technical knowledge of PFC and stream
function has guided decision making both in the OWEB watershed assessment and the
Yainix Ranch conservation easement; and there are early signs that on-the-ground
ecological conditions are improving. Based on criteria in the scholarly literature, we
suggest that the Upper Klamath Basin social-ecological system is more resilient at least
in part because of the NRST’s work there.
Interestingly, the creators of the NRST never used the language of adaptive comanagement and social-ecological resilience theory in their founding documents; but
their approach successfully incorporates many of the key aspects from these theories.
More widespread government adoption of these principles and concepts has the potential
to emerge, provided organizational leaders understand and acknowledge the challenges of
managing complex social-ecological systems, and help establish policies and institutions
aimed at addressing them.
While this study suggests that the NRST approach is effective at promoting
adaptive co-management, further research is needed to determine if and how such a
strategy could be institutionalized or incorporated into the larger organizational structure
of government agencies. Further research focused on internal and interagency barriers
and opportunities for “scaling up” the NRST’s Creeks & Communities Strategy could be
beneficial in expanding and institutionalizing this model.
Page 34
References
Armitage, D.R, R. Plummer, F. Berkes, R.I. Authur, A.T. Charles, I.J. Davidson-Hunt,
A.P. Diduck, N.C. Doubleday, D.S. Johnson, M. Marschke, P. McConney, E.W.
Pinkerton, and E.K. Wollenberg. 2009. Adaptive co-management for socialecological complexity. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 7(2): 95-102.
Asah, S.T. 2008. Empirical social-ecological system analysis: From theoretical
framework to latent variable structural equation model. Environmental
Management 42(6): 1077-1090.
Berg, B.L. 2007. Qualitative research methods for the social sciences, 6th edition.
Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Berkes, F. and C. Folke. 1998. Linking social and ecological systems: management
practices and social mechanisms for building resilience. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Brand, F.S., and K. Jax. 2007. Focusing the meaning(s) of resilience: Resilience as a
descriptive concept and a boundary object. Ecology and Society 12(1): Article 23.
Cheng, A.S. 2009. “Natural resource agencies: The necessity for change." In
Conservation for a new generation: Redefining natural resource management,
eds. R.L. Knight and C. White, pp. 33-47. Washington D.C.: Island Press.
Cortner, H.J., M.A. Shannon, M.G. Wallace, S. Burke, and M.A. Moote. 1996.
Institutional barriers and incentives for ecosystem management: a problem
analysis. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-354. Portland, OR. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.
Cortner, H.J., M.G. Wallace, S. Burke, and M.A. Moote. 1998. Institutions matter: The
need to address the institutional challenges of ecosystem management. Landscape
and Urban Planning 40(1): 159-166.
Cumming, G.S. G. Barnes, S. Perz, M. Schmink, K.E. Sieving, J. Southworth, M.
Binford, R.D. Holt, C. Stickler, and T. Van Holt. 2005. An exploration
framework for empirical measurement of resilience. Ecosystems 8: 975-987.
Daniels, S.E. and G.B. Walker. 2001. Working through environmental conflict: The
collaborative learning approach. Westport, CT: Praeger
Doremus, H. and A.D. Tarlock. 2008. Water war in the Klamath Basin: Macho law,
combat biology, and dirty politics. Washington D.C.: Island Press.
Gosnell, H. and Kelly, E.C. 2010. Peace on the river? Social-ecological restoration and
large dam removal in the Klamath basin, USA. Water Alternatives 3(2): 361-383
Page 35
Hanna S. 1994. Co-management. In Limiting access to marine fisheries: Keeping the
focus on conservation. Eds. K.L. Gimbel, pp. 233-242. Washington D.C.: Center
for Marine Conservation and World Wildlife Fund.
Holling, C. S. 1996. Engineering resilience versus ecological resilience. In Engineering
within ecological constraints, ed. P.C. Schulze, pp. 31-44. Washington D.C.:
National Academy Press.
Holling, C.S. 1973. Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annual Review of
Ecology and Systematics 4: 1-23.
Holling, C.S. 2001. Understanding the complexity of economic, ecological and social
systems. Ecosystems 4: 390-405.
Holling, C.S. 1995. What barriers? What bridges? In Barriers and bridges to the renewal
of ecosystems and institutions. eds. C.S. Holling, and S.S. Light, L.H. Gunderson,
pp. 1-34. New York: Columbia University Press.
Holling, C.S. and G.K. Meffe. 1996. Command and control and the pathology of natural
resource management. Conservation Biology 20(2): 328-337.
Karl, H.A., L.E. Susskind, and K.H. Wallace. 2007. A dialogue not a diatribe: Effective
integration of science and policy through joint fact finding. Environment 49(1):
20-34.
Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement (KBRA). 2010. Klamath basin restoration
agreement for the sustainability of public trust resources and affected
communities.
http://67.199.95.80/Klamath/Klamath%20Basin%20Restoration%20Agreement%
202-18-10signed.pdf (Accessed 23 July 2010).
Kofinas, G. P. 2009. Adaptive co-management in social-ecological governance. In
Principles of ecosystem stewardship: Resilience-based natural resource
management in a changing world, by C. Folke, G.P. Kofinas and F.S. Chapin III,
pp. 77-102. New York: Springer.
Koontz, T.M., T.A. Steelman, J. Carmin, K.S. Korimacher, C. Moseley, and C.W.
Thomas. 2004. Collaborative environmental management: What role for
government? Washington DC: RFF Press.
Lachapelle, P.R., S.F. McCool, and M.E. Patterson. 2003. Barriers to effective natural
resource planning in a "messy" world. Society and Natural Resources 16(6): 473490.
Layzer, J.A. 2008. Natural experiments: Ecosystem-based management and the
environment. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Page 36
Lee, K.N. 1993. Compass and gyroscope: Integrating science and policy for the
environment. Washington D.C.: Island Press.
Levin, S. A. 1998. Ecosystems and the biosphere as complex adaptive systems.
Ecosystems 1: 431-436.
Meine, C. 1995. The oldest task in human history. In A new century for natural resources
management. Eds. R.L. Knight and S.F. Bates, pp. 7-31. Washington D.C.: Island
Press.
Meine, C. 2009. This place in time. In Conservation for a new generation: redefining
natural resources management. Eds. R.L. Knight and C. White, pp. 11-32.
Washington D.C.: Island Press.
National Riparian Service Team (NRST). 2009. A progress report on the creeks and
communities strategy. Denver, CO: Bureau of Land Management, National
Operations Center.
National Riparian Service Team (NRST) (Forthcoming). Desk guide: understanding and
implementating the creeks and communities strategy. Denver, CO: Bureau of
Land Management.
Nelson, R.H. 1995. The federal land management agencies. In A new century for natural
resources management. Eds. R.L. Knight and S.F. Bates, pp. 37-60. Washington
D.C.: Island Press.
Olsson, P., C. Folke, V. Galaz, T. Hahn, and L. Schultz. 2007. Enhancing the fit through
adaptive co-management: Creating and maintaing bridging functions for matching
scales in the Kristianstads Vattenrike Biosphere Reserve, Sweden. Ecology and
Society 12(1): Article 28.
Olsson, P., C. Folke, and F. Berkes. 2004. Adaptive comanagement for building
resilience in social-ecological systems. Environmental Management 34(1): 75-90.
USDI Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2010. National Riparian Service Team.
http://www.blm.gov/or/programs/nrst/index.php (accessed June 24, 2010).
Van Riper, L. 2003. Can agency-led initiatives conform to collaborative principles?
Evaluating and reshaping an interagency program through participatory
research. Ph D. dissertation, University of Montana, Missoula, Montana.
Walker, C. 1997. Challenges in adaptive management of riparian and coastal ecosystems.
Conservation Ecology 1(2): Article 1.
Walker, B., and D. Salt. 2006. Resilience thinking: Sustaining ecosystems and people in a
changing world. Washington D.C.: Island Press.
Page 37
Walker, B., A. Kinzig, and J. Langridge.1999. Plant attribute and diversity, resilience,
and ecosystem function: The nature and significance of dominant and minor
species. Ecosystems 2: 95-113.
Walters, C.J. 1986. Adaptive management of renewable resources. New York: McGraw
Hill.
Wondolleck, J.M. and S.L. Yaffee. 2000. Making collaboration work: Lessons from
innovation in natural resource management. Washington D.C.: Island Press.
Working Landscape Alliance. 2005. Working Landscape Alliance Summary. Sustainable
Northwest. http://www.sustainablenorthwest.org/programs/rangelands/WLAsummary.pdf (accessed 21 July 2010).
Yin, Robert K. 1994. Case study research: design and method, 2nd Edition. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Page 38
Appendix 1: Interview Guide
Introduction
1. Introduce myself
2. Remind the interviewee about the study, its purpose
3. Remind the interviewee about the NRST’s purpose, goals, vision, and specifically
the Creeks and Communities Strategy and the purpose of the Service Trips
4. Present interviewee with consent form, go thru briefly, answer any questions,
have them sign it, noting whether they agree to be recorded
5. Ask the interviewee if they have any time constraints
6. Provide a brief overview of what I’m going to cover
a. Your experience with the NRST’s activities in the Sprague (not the standalone PFC and grazing trainings)
b. Your perceptions of the effectiveness of the NRST’s activities in the
Sprague, both the technical training aspects and the group facilitation
aspects
c. Your perceptions of the outcomes related to the NRST’s activities in the
Sprague – how they’ve changed you, your community, and the overall
health of riparian areas there
d. Your thoughts on what might have stood in the way of the NRST
achieving the goals of the C&C Initiative in the Sprague
e. Suggestions for improving the program
Experiences with the NRST
1. Please tell me about your experience with the National Riparian Service Team in
the Sprague.
a. When, where, how many interactions?
b. What types of activities?
c. Why did you participate in an NRST activity/workshop?
d. In what capacity did you participate?
i. Part of your job, permittee, interested citizen, other?
Effectiveness of Activities
2. How effective were the technical trainings in which you participated in the
Sprague? (Do you recall which training activities you participated in?)
a. Did the facilitators use a variety of teaching techniques to help you
understand the concept of Proper Functioning Condition and the principles
of stream restoration? Which teaching techniques were most/least
effective?
i. In the field, in the classroom, joint fact-finding exercises, visuals,
etc.
Page 39
3. How effective was the NRST’s overall approach to conflict resolution/facilitation
in the Sprague?
a. Were the facilitators able to secure the up-front involvement of all
relevant stakeholders?
i. Those most affected by the situation
ii. Those needed to implement the solutions (those in positions of
power)
iii. People typically considered “underminers”
b. Was it a diverse group? (Were tribal members included? Enviros?)
c. Did the facilitators demonstrate a good understanding of the particular
ecological, economic and social needs of your community’s specific
situation?
d. Did the facilitators maintain a neutral position?
e. Did they create a “safe” atmosphere characterized by non-threatening,
respectful communication?
f. Were they able to build consensus?
i. Regarding the nature of the situation (problem definition)
ii. Regarding necessary actions (solutions)
g. Did they successfully facilitate relationship-building and networking?
h. Did they help establish more trust between and among participants?
i. Did they create an environment of mutual learning?
Outcomes
4. How do you think your interactions with the NRST affected you? Please be
specific about which aspects of the NRST experience had the most/least impact.
a. Knowledge
i. Did it impact your understanding of riparian function?
ii. Did it impact your understanding of restoration?
iii. Did you have any “aha” moments?
b. Skills
i. Did you gain skills that help you restore your riparian areas?
ii. Did you gain skills to help you solve problems?
iii. Did you learn skills that help manage conflict?
c. Approach to Management
i. How have your riparian management actions changed as a result of
the NRST trainings? Specific examples?
1. Use of PFC to assess your stream?
2. Monitoring?
3. Grazing management?
a. What role does timing, intensity, duration, and
frequency play in your grazing practices? Did this
change as a result of NRST?
ii. Have your interactions with other users/owners/managers of your
stream changed as a result of the NRST activities you participated
in?
Page 40
5. Has the community’s interactions changed as a result of NRST’s involvement?
Please be specific about which aspects of the NRST experience had the most/least
impact.
a. Do you feel like there is a shared vision of recovery and how to get there?
b. Better coordination between government agencies?
c. Better coordination between agencies and private property owners,
permittees, stakeholders, etc?
d. Can you think of any examples of how problems with creeks have been
solved collaboratively?
e. In what ways, if any, did the community’s interactions with the NRST
affect political conditions in the Sprague?
i. New partnerships/alliances?
ii. Better relations between agencies and permittees and public?
iii. Fewer lawsuits or threat of lawsuits to solve problems?
f. In what ways, if any, did the community’s interactions with the NRST
affect its ability to mobilize resources?
i. Skills, money, labor, materials, time
ii. Examples of grants won due to new community capacity to
mobilize?
6. Do you think the overall stream environment has changed as a result of NRST
involvement in your community?
a. Trends in functionality? Moved closer to PFC? DFC? Evidence?
Barriers/Constraints
7. If there have been no changes in any of the above, why not? What do you think
might be standing in the way of the NRST achieving its objectives?
Conclusion
8. Do you and/or your community still interact with the NRST and/or use them as a
resource?
a. If so, for what?
b. If not, why not?
9. What suggestions do you have for improving the NRST’s effectiveness?
10. Are there any other relevant topics related to the performance of the NRST in the
Sprague that we haven’t covered that you’d like to discuss?